I’ve discussed before how the Oakland Airport Connector will waste half a billion dollars to serve only 1,000 new riders, but I thought I’d float a more practical alternative to using the money: a new station in the San Antonio district in East Oakland. Bart stretches nearly three miles between the Lake Merritt and Fruitvale Stations without a stop, passing one of the densest districts in the East Bay–approximately 30,000 people in just a little over one square mile. The Bart Station Profile Survey shows this gap beautifully:
The Bart Station Profile Study demonstrates the lack of riders in the San Antonio District in Oakland. Courtesy of Transbay Blog
The triangle-looking hole in Bart service stretches from 14th Ave to Fruitvale Ave, suggesting that most people who live in the area either drive or take AC Transit to get around. Yet, Bart passes over a lot in this stretch, particularly serving the 14th Ave and 23rd Ave business districts and The station could go at either 14th Ave, an at-grade Bart line adjacent to an overbuilt road intersection with plenty of room for redesign:
Or 23rd Ave, an elevated Bart line along wide but underused boulevard in an industrial area:
Even though the biggest hole in Bart ridership is along 23rd Ave, 14th Ave station would probably attract more riders, being on a larger corridor with connections to Highland Hospital and Glenview. It is also likely a more practical option because there is more space around the station (even for some parking?). But how many riders could a 14th Ave station attract? Let’s take a look at some similar stations:
| Station | Daily Ridership (FY 08) | Estimated Population Density (persons/sq. mile) |
| Rockridge | 5,168 | 8,118 |
| MacArthur | 7,559 | 13,605 |
| Ashby | 4,522 | 15,877 |
| Fruitvale | 7,479 | 17,622 |
| Glen Park | 7,633 | 19,999 |
| 16th St. Mission | 10,907 | 28,035 |
| 24th St. Mission | 12,500 | 45,911 |
| San Antonio | ??? | 24,074 |
I intentionally selected stations that, like San Antonio, are locally-based and would have a low level of outside commuters. I selected the adjacent census tracts that make up no more than two square miles surrounding the given stations, and tried to be as consistent as possible, but granted, this is a subjective and not scientific method. It is also important to note that Fruitvale attracts a number of commuters from Alameda, so its ridership numbers are a little inflated. Nevertheless, this analysis yields significant results.
The San Antionio district is nearly as dense as the 16th St. and Mission station in San Francisco, and more dense than the areas surrounding the Ashby, MacArthur, Fruitvale, Rockridge, and Glen Park stations. Similar East Bay stations attract a minimum of 4,500 daily riders and a maximum of 7,500 daily riders. I would argue that, because of the higher density of the district and the potential to reach even farther into Glenview and even Montclair, a San Antionio station would attract between 6,000 and 8,000 daily riders if it were built today, and potentially even more after transit-oriented development and growth in the area (keep in mind, this is my realistic estimate, and a [fantastical] BART estimate would probably be in the 15,000 range by 2020 or something like that). For an infill station to immediately be in the top 15 stations out of the 43 in the Bart system, that’s pretty damn good.
So how much would all of this cost? Well, the West-Dublin-Pleasanton station currently under construction costs 80 million dollars, which includes a 1200 space parking garage (probably 20-35 million in itself). The optional Irvington infill station on the Warm Springs extension would cost about 95 million if built. I’d say 100 million is a reasonable conservative estimate on the cost of a Bart station, but it could be as low as 70 million since parking structures wouldn’t be necessary. There is also the option for an additional Amtrak station that would probably cost another 15 million or so (a brand new station in Hercules will be constructed for 45 million, but a simple add-on shouldn’t be nearly that much). An intermodal station could serve as an important transfer point to Bart while adding more riders as Capitol Corridor expands in the future.
Therefore, for 70-115 million dollars, Bart could immidiately add another 6,000-8,000 riders (and potentially 10,000 by 2020) and provide service to a dense and extremely underserved district in Oakland. This station would be one of the easiest ways for Bart to reinvest in the urban core and truly promote smart growth, and best of all, it would be just 1/5-1/7 the cost while attracting 6-8 times the initial riders. The Bart Board needs to face reality: if they’re truly trying to serve East Oakland (as they claimed in the OAC debate) and control sprawl, then fill the three mile gap in San Antonio with a station.
***UPDATE***
1. I talked to my friend Tom Radulovich, who is on the Bart Board of Directors, and he said that the idea for a station at 8th Ave had been floated in the 1990s with the preliminary estuary planning, but nothing ever became of it. I added it as a third alternative on the map above. It has many advantages, including easier access to the Oak to 9th development, and tons of room for TOD (since the Bart and UP facilities there are more or less unnecessary and can be moved). However, it is currently an industrial area without a whole lot of room for infill and redevelopment, and it’s farther away from the 12th St. and International business corridors. It also does not have as direct of transit access as the 14th Ave (or 23rd Ave) corridors, and is closer to the Lake Merrit station, so it really would serve new development more than the existing San Antionio area.
2. Tom also said he requested that studies be completed to analyze the impacts of infill stations at Albany, San Antionio, and 30th & Mission, but nothing ever came of them (bureaucracy at its finest).
3. I was in the area today, so I made a quick stop to check out the 14th Ave Burger King area again. The immediate area is primarily industrial, and I had forgotten how poor the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is. Currently, there really isn’t enough of a neighborhood to support a station (compared to Fruitvale) and most users would likely travel to the station by bus. Still, there’s a lot of potential for a feeder BRT line along 14th Ave., and I think some traffic calming and infill development could strengthen the 14th & International area.
Lots and lots of space for a station...
...But there isn't exactly a thriving neighborhood to back it up.
So the question is, how would you bring much-needed Bart service to an area that has no infrastructure or neighborhood framework to currently support it? The good news is that at least there’s some sort of neighborhood (and still a very high density to support a station). After all, Bart has built stations and TOD in much worse locations with much lower ridership.
Nice high level analysis. I wonder how an albany stop, or a oakland childern’s hospital stop would compare. Or a 30th and mission.
FYI, in the table you’ve got ashby, .macarthur, ashby… is one of those ashby’s meant to be a rockridge?
Pingback: Streetsblog San Francisco » Today’s Headlines
While I generally support making BART more useful in urban areas I live and commute in, I question some of your ##/assumptions. Macarthur generates very large ridership from Emery Go Round servicing the retail clerks. There is not much of that near 14th Ave. I am not clear how you can compare 16th Mission which does not have either a freeway or a dead railroad yard wasting acreage nearby. I will say, I have often thought BART should use that area for a short turn/relay track installation to gain greater operational flexibility.
A great idea, and one that folks at MTC and BART have also had. The walkshed is unfortunately cut in half by the railyards and 880, although you could get a pedestrian bridge over them — and thereby connect to Oak to 9th (assuming it’s built) in a nice little bit of synergy.
This is a fantastic idea. I live only a mile or two from the San Antonio, but I had no idea it was so much denser than its surrounding areas.
There are, however, a few issues with a San Antonio station that I’d want to address.
I think that using density comparisons for other neighborhoods with BART stations is a little misleading in the case of the San Antonio. Most of the BART stations are pretty centrally located in their neighborhoods, while the BART line runs along the edge of the San Antonio neighborhood and is buffered further by some major roadways. That could definitely effect its ability to draw riders.
I agree that 14th ave. would be a better site than 23rd (considering the 14th ave./park blvd. corridor). To make that a successful station, the streets in the area (especially E. 12th & E. 8th st.s) would nee to be reconfigured to allow greater pedestrian safety and access. If you’re thinking of building an infill station with minimal parking, there needs to be a major redesign of the roads in the area which currently make it completely inhospitable to anything other than cars. I think this is something the could definitely be accomplished. 14th ave. is a grand boulevard for most of its length. It just needs to be redesigned from Foothill to E. 8th so its natural terminus at the bottom of the hill is a new BART station.
To really tap the neighborhood, I think BART would need to work with ACTransit to create a bus-node like they have at Fruitvale BART. You could have a feeder line running from the top of 14th ave all the way down.
All told, this is a very cool idea. The San Antonio has a few budding commercial districts (I really like the one growing up around San Antonio Park), and a BART station could be the impetus needed to spark their success and create more opportunities for smarth growth development.
Oh, I forgot to mention: regarding a conventional rail station, this site and somewhere in West Oakland are really the only two feasible locations for an eventual Oakland HSR station, and the latter assumes a new, four-track Tube. We’re talking waaay down the road here, obviously. But it’s a thought.
@carbonxt: I’d say ridership potential is probably equal or a a little less than 30th and Mission, but 30th and Mission would cost 500+ million and take years to construct because of the numerous engineering challenges. Albany would be a logical spot, but doesn’t quite have the density I think. To justify a Children’s Hospital stop, I think you’d have to reopen the old Merritt College building as some type of university as well. Northgate and Seminary in Oakland are two other possibilities, but they present their own set of issues.
@david vartanoff: I agree that the Emery G0 Round does prop up MacArthur’s ridership, which helps explain why it has a high amount of riders in spite of its medium density. The thing is, in comparison to say, the Coliseum station, there is a lot within walking distance or a short, direct bus ride. I don’t expect it to get as many riders as 16th and Mission, but it does serve as an interesting contrast.
@Steve: I hadn’t even though about a pedestrian/bike bridge, but that’s a great idea. It’d probably add another 15 million or so? But that’s the type of thing that Oak-to-9th developers could help pay for easily.
@ Chris Kidd: I think the beauty of a San Antonio station is that its highest density areas would be within about 1/4-1/3 mile of the station, and the rest of the district is centered around 14th Ave (for feeder buses as you said). You’re right about pedestrian/bicyclist safety, and I think that there’s enough room to do a Fruitvale-esque redesign of the Burger King area to encourage TOD and create a pedestrian plaza/marketplace. Bart would be a huge boost to the district.
@ Steve: I think the biggest potential for an Amtrak/Capitol Corridor station is that it 1) provides both a faster and more direct transfer point to SF and 2) adds a lot of potential riders if/when the Capitol Corridor line expands to serve as the primary mode of inner-city travel along the San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento corridor. Also, if the Capitol Corridor cannot find a way to run trains more than every 2 hours (or whatever it is) from Oakland to San Jose, it at least provides a faster, easier transfer point than Richmond does.
Found a nice example of a similarly sized ped bridge, recently built in Seattle at a cost of $10M:
http://www.coa.uncc.edu/ccds/bridge/amgen_helix_precedent.pdf
Not to sidetrack, but without a better connection to BART than a local bus, Oak to 9th is just going to be a massive traffic generator.
The Berkeley bridge completed in 2002 was 6.4 million, but that was only over a freeway and would probably cost 8 or so today. Davis just completed a pretty long bridge for 14 million that crosses multiple sets of train tracks and a freeway–it’s not nearly as nice as the Amgen bridge though. I think the new one in Sunnyvale was 7 million or so.
Oak to 9th will definitely be a mess unless the 72R and/or Oakland streetcar is extended out there. Maybe move the Jack London ferry down a bit as well.
Great post. I’ve always wondered about the feasibility of putting a station in that spot. My place is about 6 blocks away on East 18th. Being able to walk to BART would be mind blowing. With good AC Transit service nearby (the 1, 1R, 40, 11, and 14) the Fruitvale-like bus hub concept would work. There’s already a good connection to Embarcadero via the 16th Ave bridge.
Pingback: Oakland Streetcar Network « 21st Century Urban Solutions
Pingback: Oakland Updates: OAC, AC Transit Passes, Auto Row & BART Police « Living in the O
Pretty cool post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say
that I have really liked reading your blog posts. Anyway
I’ll be subscribing to your blog and I hope you post again soon!
Its all Information about Training Consulting Coaching
Your style is really unique in comparison to other people
I’ve read stuff from. Thanks for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I’ll just bookmark this page.